Industry not harvest: Principles to minimise collateral damage in impact assessment at scale | Impact of Social Sciences

“As the UK closes the curtains on the Research Excellence Framework 2021 (REF2021) and embarks on another round of consultation, there is little doubt that, whatever the outcome, the expectation remains that research should be shown to be delivering impact. If anything, this expectation is only intensifying. Fuelled by the stated success of REF 2014, the appetite for impact assessment also appears – at least superficially – to be increasing internationally, albeit largely stopping short of mirroring a fully formalised REF-type model. Within this context, the UK’s Future Research Assessment Programme was recently announced, with a remit to explore revised or alternative approaches. Everything is on the table, so we are told, and the programme sensibly includes the convening of an external body of international advisors to cast their, hopefully less jaded eyes upon proceedings….”

 

Rescognito

“Rescognito is a free service for recognizing and promoting Open Research. It can be used in two ways:

1. Use Rescognito for recognition: Search for a colleague. Click to view their Open Ledger. Click the “Recognize” button displayed next to their name or publications. Award and claim CRediT for a particular publication (video explainer).

2. Use Rescognito to create free research checklists (Beta): click on https://rescognito.com/createchecklist, enter a DOI and create your own free checklist to share with colleagues….”

Can We Re-engineer Scholarly Journal Publishing? An Interview with Richard Wynne, Rescognito – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Let me say out loud what almost everyone involved in scholarly publishing knows: the transition to Open Access will not by itself significantly reduce the cost of publishing, nor is it likely to improve the culture around research incentives. Consequently, there remains a pressing need to reduce costs and improve research culture; but in ways that do not dismantle the proven — but expensive — benefits of peer review and editorial evaluation….

Despite the transition to Open Access, many researchers, librarians, and research funders continue to feel short-changed and profoundly dissatisfied….

Scholarly publishers and research funders continue to focus primarily on the transition to Open Access, but embracing a new payment model will not by itself fix customer satisfaction problems or reduce costs. At some point there will be a need to articulate a more coherent explanation of how scholarly publishers add value, and to implement efficient systems that reflect this understanding. Assertion workflows are one possible solution to this problem.”

 

Next Steps Toward Using CRediT for Credit | NISO website

“Ensuring that researchers get credit for all the work they do, not just for the papers they write, is essential if we are ever to move beyond the current culture of “publish or perish.” Securing funding, managing data, writing software, and more are every bit as important to the success of a research project. But these roles are typically harder to identify and, therefore, tend to be overlooked when a researcher’s work is being evaluated, for example, when they are applying for promotion or tenure or seeking funding.

The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) initiative aims to make it easier for researchers to get the credit they deserve for all their contributions, by identifying 14 different roles that can be assigned to one or more contributors to a research project. This information can then be included in the metadata for any research output — articles, books/book chapters, datasets, etc.

The CRediT taxonomy grew out of a Wellcome Trust/Harvard University workshop in 2012, which led to a pilot project to test it out with a group of science journal editors, the results of which were reported in Nature Communications. The 14 roles that have been defined are:

Conceptualization: formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims
Data curation: management activities to annotate, scrub data, and maintain research data for initial use and later re-use
Formal analysis: application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data
Funding acquisition: getting financial support for the project leading to the publication
Investigation: conducting the research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection
Methodology: development or design of the methodology; creation of models
Project administration: management and coordination responsibility for the research activity, planning, and execution
Resources: providing study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools
Software: programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components
Supervision: oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Validation: verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs
Visualization: preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation
Writing – original draft: preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation)
Writing – review and editing: reparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision, including pre- or post-publication stages …”